As one who never manages to conjure up long lists of descriptors, I took heart in this paragraph in particular:
[A] 1996 study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology showed that even flavor-trained professionals cannot reliably identify more than three or four components in a mixture, although wine critics regularly report tasting six or more. There are eight in this description, from The Wine News … of a Silverado Limited Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2005 … : “Dusty, chalky scents followed by mint, plum, tobacco and leather. Tasty cherry with smoky oak accents…” … The Wine Advocate, describes a wine as having “promising aromas of lavender, roasted herbs, blueberries, and black currants.” What is striking about this pair of descriptions is that, although they are very different, they are descriptions of the same Cabernet. One taster lists eight flavors and scents, the other four, and not one of them coincide.
Thanks for posting this. I would not at all be surprised that many such articles arise in part from writers culling tidbits from wine boards like this one.
They pour, sip and, with passion and snobbery, glorify or doom wines. But studies say the wine-rating system is badly flawed. How the experts fare against a coin toss.
Thanks Serge. Good quote: “Despite his studies, Mr. Hodgson is betting that, like the French, American consumers won’t be easily converted to the idea that wine experts are fallible.”. Facts can be annoying when they conflict with our established belief systems.
I have the article in a word document, I can email it out… but it is on their subscription site, so linking it won’t work unless you have a subscription.
This article is BS. Wine Critics are always right, all the time. This is a hack job!!
IN all seriousness, great article, thanks for posting. Like Richard above, that quote about people not coming around to the idea that critics are fallible is the one that stuck with me. Aside from us nerds on the boards or people who have been drinking for many years, most PEOPLE need someone to tell them what’s good and what isn’t. It’s a way for them to feel comfortable in what they are purchasing.
I think it important to remain skeptical about ALL claims, both those for and those against any semblance of accuracy in tasting abilities.
Lots of these sensory studies are ratherly poorly put together. An old experiment invoking “an ensemble of experts” may or may not have validity. It’s often necessary to pick apart the experimental design to see if the results carry any larger meaning.
Having said that, the central point of the article is pretty consistent with what is more or less common knowledge to most who have studied enology… wine tasting is far less a reproducible skill than most seem to think it is.
I think that the Skadden-Arps chick was onto something when she said that descriptions of sensations of taste [and smell] are too subjective to be of any use to anyone, and that critics really ought to concentrate on describing sensations of mouthfeel.
PS: Increasingly I am coming to the conclusion that notes written by anyone [amateur or professional] attending a mega-tasting [anything more than about 10 wines] are largely useless.
The pros taste so many wines every day that their ability to detect nuance in wine is completely shot after about the first 15 minutes.
Great article and well-written, I think it shows the sham that are ratings points.
We must remember that we as wine lovers are a small minority of the wine-drinking public. Most folks are so intimidated by the whole culture of wine that they throw their hands in the air and take ratings as objective measurements, when we know they’re not. When faced with a wall of labels, it’s easy to want some guidance and just fall back on the ratings. I am sure many folks only tried to buy 90+ point bottles when they first started (and I’m sure some still do). But eventually we figured out what styles we preferred and bought those wines that corresponded to that preference.
Basically, the general public just doesn’t trust its palate, despite exhortations to “drink what you like.” Until they do, critics of one sort or another will survive.
It will never happen.
“The general public” is always going to contain a segment of the population that is new to wine, and interested in learning. For them, the work put out by wine critics seems very seductive, very helpful.
‘We’ in this case is not exactly true - even those on the forum. Many here buy based on rating numbers, but even in the greater wine world of wine geeks, there are obviously many thousands of followers of points who buy solely on that basis, as the market has shown. Demand is determined by the numbers game, and prices reflect the number given.
I recall standing at line at UGC in LA last year, listening to an intense conversation amongst three individuals who were reading through the list of wines being poured, rattling off the RMP numbers from memory on at least 50% of the wines, and they were decided what to sample based on those points.
This segment deserved a more critical reception than the author gave it:
And though [Parker] didn’t agree to Mr. Grande’s challenge, he sent me the results of a blind tasting in which he did participate.
The tasting was at Executive Wine Seminars in New York, and consisted of three flights of five wines each. The participants knew they were 2005 Bordeaux wines that Mr. Parker had previously rated for an issue of The Wine Advocate. . . . The wines were chosen, Mr. Kaplan says, because they were 15 of Mr. Parker’s highest-rated from that vintage.
Mr. Parker pointed out that, except in three cases, his second rating for each wine fell “within a 2-3 point deviation” of his first. That’s less variation than Mr. Hodgson found. One possible reason: Mr. Parker’s first rating of all the wines fell between 95 and 100—not a large spread.
More significant than the fact that “Parker’s first rating of all the wines fell between 95 and 100” is that Parker knew his first rating of all the wines fell between 95 and 100 – thus if he wanted to spare himself the embarrassment of issuing a wildly divergent score the second time, all he had to do was stay in that same range. I’m not sure a 2-3 point deviation in that situation is better than random chance.
The fact that Parker thought that event was in any way a reasonable substitute for the statistical study he was invited to participate in shows he was clueless at best.
well and a 3 point deviation means a nominal 92 point wine could be 89 or 95 too. Quick, go ask people who worship at the 100 point altar if they think an 89 and a 95 point wine are pretty much the same. Or if they’d pay the same money for an 89 point wine as a 95.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
![[tease.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c5b32b76bebaa359b0452ae247b61189ffe5fa7e.gif "tease"){kind=small}